851. Christopher Hitchens at AAI 07

Comment #80299 by steve99 on October 21, 2007 at 8:13 am

Well, first of all, quantum effects on a molecular level are extremely unlikely. You get relevant quantum effects on an elementary particle level. Already at the atom level the probability density functions average out.

I disagree. As I have worked on statistical mechanics models of molecular interactions, I can confirm that all kinds of quantum effects occur above the level of molecules. Just to take one example everyone would have heard about, superconductors would not work if this were not the case. Another case is vibrations in macroscopic systems like crystals, which are described in quantised states called phonons. In that case quantum effects can influence macroscopic properties.

The second issue is that even if by some incredible coincidence a set of quantum fluctuations would affect the movement of a molecule in say a neurotransmitter it would make zero difference. If and how much a neuron fires depends on the concentrations of neurotransmitters - again a question of averages. A few tray molecules will make no difference. And at this point the system is quite linear.

I know... I am not talking about quantum mechanics and brain function.

The über-nonlinear complex part comes at a level above that and it's the interactions between the connected components. There you may apply chaos theory. And sure a small number of activations can produce large effects. It has however nothing to do with quantum uncertainty.

Sorry, but you are wrong. In general physical systems that are chaotic, effects on any scale are quickly amplified.

I am not saying that quantum effects directly effect general mental events. That is clearly nonsense. However there are plenty of physical systems where the non-linearity is such that even differences in quantum effects can cause differences at the macroscopic level. There is no barrier isolating these levels.

Just to give a single dramatic example: a single cosmic ray can cause sufficient biological damage to be detected, and that damage can be sufficient to cause a tumour. Yet, the production of each cosmic ray is entirely a matter of quantum mechanics.

852. Christopher Hitchens at AAI 07

Comment #80284 by steve99 on October 21, 2007 at 6:04 am

I know very little about the subject, but using quantum phenomena to try to explain free will sounds to me like using Relavity Theory to decide whether to have another piece of cake or not.

I think people sometimes try and bring in quantum mechanics pretty directly to explain free will because one interpretation of quantum mechanics implies that quantum possibilities collapse into one when things are 'observed'. This seems to some to suggest that our 'free will' somehow has control over what is 'observed'. This is pretty wild when you think about it.

What seems a little more reasonable is that a non-deterministic universe somehow allows room for free will.

853. Does fundamentalist religion cause the rejection of evolution? or is it the other way around?

Comment #80279 by steve99 on October 21, 2007 at 5:37 am

If evolution is not counter-intuitive, why did it take such a long time before Darwin came up with it?

Evolution is only somewhat intuitive when you realise how much time is available for it to happen.

854. Christopher Hitchens at AAI 07

Comment #80269 by steve99 on October 21, 2007 at 3:53 am

What is reality?

In the spirit of Dr Johnson, what I new existed when I banged my leg on the edge of a bed earlier this morning.

855. Christopher Hitchens at AAI 07

Comment #80268 by steve99 on October 21, 2007 at 3:50 am

Steve,
I've read a number of articles in New Scientist that point out that the consensus view is that quantum effects wash out at the macro level. And quantum theories about the brain have never been proven.

I'm not talking about quantum effects in the brain leading to consciousness. I am talking about quantum mechanics leading to uncertainty at the macroscopic level.

What washes out at the macro level is the situation where the wave function has not collapsed. In other words, you don't (except for extreme conditions) get 'different simultanous possibilities' at the macro level.

However, the randomness (what you get when the wavefunction collapses) of quantum mechanics does influence the macro level. When molecules interact, they do so via the laws of quantum mechanics. When atoms absorb or give off light (and other radiation) the do so via the laws of quantum mechanics. And we know from chaos theory that even the smallest differences in possibility can have significant macroscopic consequences. If a molecule bounced off another *that* way instead of *this* way, it can have effects.

Personally, I am not that convinced that quantum uncertainty has anything to do with the issue of whether there is free will or not. It may have, but to me the issue is about randomness vs. determinism. Scooternc seemed to me to be discussing lack of free will due to determinism - everything could be predicted. My point is that there may or may not be free will, but there certainly isn't determinism.

856. Christopher Hitchens at AAI 07

Comment #80264 by steve99 on October 21, 2007 at 3:12 am

Course, you seem to be going to the opposite extreme of translating quantum phenomena all the way up to the macroscopic universe.

That isn't extreme; it is reality.

857. Does fundamentalist religion cause the rejection of evolution? or is it the other way around?

Comment #80251 by steve99 on October 21, 2007 at 2:21 am

No evolution does not say "god does not exist" because a deist god could exist who "started it all and then stepped back"-of course

As people get more educated in science (especially that of the last 100 years), it should become more widely realised that a deist god is powerless. There is no more ability to 'start it all and stand back' and get anything predictable with evolution than there is with, say, the weather. You get general themes, but the whole process is unpredictable.

858. Christopher Hitchens at AAI 07

Comment #80167 by steve99 on October 20, 2007 at 11:20 am

The interesting thing about this is that atheists decry as one of the pitfalls of religion its absolutism and then claim Hitchens' side when he makes absolutist statements. I see an irony here, does anyone else?

Not me. I think you are confusing absolutism and fundamentalism. Rational people make absolutist statements all the time, but they don't treat those statements as unquestionable dogma.

859. Christopher Hitchens at AAI 07

Comment #80112 by steve99 on October 20, 2007 at 3:46 am

Qualia are not experiences, but the alleged essence of sensory experiences. They are supposed to be qualities independent of both their cause and effect.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualia

I know what qualia are. I have been researching this for decades.

It's religion quality nonsense, completely unscientific and very bad philosophy. For a good, albeit rather obvious critique of qualia, see Dennett's "Consciousness explained" or the more recent "Sweet dreams".

Don't you think I haven't studied those? Like many others, I find Dennett's explanation (or rather non-explanation) of qualia to be highly problematic. Qualia are a matter of serious debate. They are certainly not 'religion quality nonsense'.

860. Christopher Hitchens at AAI 07

Comment #80076 by steve99 on October 19, 2007 at 9:26 pm

Christians don't claim that you need to believe in God in order to have God-given knowledge of right and wrong. And they certainly aren't claiming you need to believe in order to be capable of doing right.

Oh yes, they really, really do. I have spend a long time on this site (as have many others) dealing with specific Christian individuals who have claimed precisely that

861. Christopher Hitchens at AAI 07

Comment #80064 by steve99 on October 19, 2007 at 7:44 pm

The "subjective nature" of qualia, such that it would be, is irrelevant in observation. It is what it is - the experience is the experience. To which an intellectual should say, "so what?".

My personal view is that as the only contact we have with reality is qualia, anyone who says "so what" is attempting to delude themselves... reality is nothing but experience.

And, I am afraid, I need to read a lot more of Daniel Dennett, David Chalmers and Roger Penrose before I can reply in detail...

But, I will if you wish.

862. Christopher Hitchens at AAI 07

Comment #80059 by steve99 on October 19, 2007 at 7:18 pm

There is no such thing as free will.

Many, many philosophers, including Daniel Denett will disagree with you about this.

Humans are composed of physical matter. This physical matter follows all the laws of physics. There are no components of human consciousness or decision-making abilities in addition to physical matter. The terms mind and soul are spiritual wishful thinking and mystical explanations for the unknown.

Personally, I don't think they are mystical. Mind and soul describe what we feel ourselves to be. Physical matter and the laws of physics are the best objective models we happen to have come up with to descrive reality. There is no reason to believe either point of view to be anything like complete, so we really can't link one to the other. Until we have a better understanding of consciousness, and the physical nature of reality, it is far too soon to start to talk about free will.

If a charge is introduced to one end of a neuron, then the charge will propagate to the other end of the neuron. The animal that possesses the neuron has no choice in whether the neuron transmits or not.

But such changes seem to produce qualia. But we have no idea what qualia are, or why they are experienced. Until we can deal with this, we have to admit that the process of charge transfer in neurons has implications beyond anything we can understand.

I have a lot of respect for your views. What I am trying to say here is that discussions of the true nature of free will are probably beyond our current level of understanding of reality and the nature of mind. I feel uncomfortable with definitive statements about this.

863. Christopher Hitchens at AAI 07

Comment #80053 by steve99 on October 19, 2007 at 6:42 pm

The burden of proof is on the claimant.

Indeed it is. The claimant for millenia has been the religious, who have claimed that the religious are morally superior. Hitchens has asked them to provide evidence to the contrary.

864. Christopher Hitchens at AAI 07

Comment #80042 by steve99 on October 19, 2007 at 3:33 pm

Their belief may be irrational, but that's the belief. Don't go trying to claim that they believe in things that they explicitly do not believe in.

I think you need to learn a lot more; both about formal logical systems and about human psychology.

865. Christopher Hitchens at AAI 07

Comment #80036 by steve99 on October 19, 2007 at 3:25 pm

The basis for the argument of "free will" may be flawed - as you point out - but none-the-less, that is the basis for the Christian moral thesis as accepted by a consensus of Christians from all sects.

Well, I don't think I could have put it better myself. The consensus belief of Christians is flawed.

(I have to admit in all honesty that all logical frameworks we know of are flawed. The problem is that Christians claim to know the mind of the perfect God).

Since Hitchens is the one challenging them and gloating over their non-response to his challenge, then I should think Hitchens could procure a quote from one of these individuals. Why hasn't he? Can anybody do this?

I am having trouble both parsing and understanding this statement. Hitchens put forward a challenge, and we are supposed to quote "non-responses"? Or quotes from people who have not responded?

OK, I realise that was a bit of a cheap shot. But, what you need to realise is that Hitchens has been putting forward this challenge for some time, including during a widely reported and televised book tour. If anyone had responded, you can bet that would have been widely publicised.

866. Christopher Hitchens at AAI 07

Comment #80026 by steve99 on October 19, 2007 at 2:49 pm

steve99, did you read my first post?

Actually, yes:

Christian theology REQUIRES that the free-will and the ability to act morally or immorally exist in all people

That is because Christian theology is inconsistent. Free will is not consistent with an omnipotent and omniscient God.

Perhaps before Christians come up with a consistent summary of what they believe, they could come up with a consistent theology.

If you can make a definite statement about theology, I am impressed.

867. Christopher Hitchens at AAI 07

Comment #80017 by steve99 on October 19, 2007 at 2:27 pm

Hitchens is manufacturing a bogus argument. He "wins" his arguments by misrepresenting his opponents and grandstanding.

I would be terribly interested in exactly how Hitchens misrepresents his opponents. I mean, if the representatives of each religion could just get together and come up with a nice definite summary of what they believe, that would be just so useful.

868. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #79974 by steve99 on October 19, 2007 at 10:54 am

Judas, Mary, etc. And, if you want to believe those versions of the story of Jesus' life, then you're really having to go on faith.

And you don't for the other versions? Why not? I am serious - do you realise who chose which versions of the story to include in the bible? Why should you trust them?

869. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #79908 by steve99 on October 19, 2007 at 2:46 am

I have been reading your later posts, saying this is the last one:-)

It is an addiction. I could say that it was because I was somewhat annoyed at DG calling epeeist's response 'sour grapes' - rather ungrateful considering the endless responses he has given, but that hides the addiction. These kinds of forums always have people who say 'I am not posting for a while', and then shortly after ... 'oh just back for a bit'. I am afraid I suffer from that. I shall go cold turkey with DG, and I will need firm words if I falter...

870. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #79903 by steve99 on October 19, 2007 at 2:03 am

I see. But then there is also the fable of the sour grapes to ponder.

It is, at least in my case, closer to the Concorde Fallacy. After having spent so much time and resources debating, going over the same points again and again dozens of times and being ignored, it seems like a waste not to try just one more time when it seems people are so close to understanding. But no. What seemed like the illusion of debate and understanding was nothing of the kind. It was sound and fury, signifying nothing. Mostly fun, but unproductive.

If nothing else, it has been to me an education about the barriers to understanding. How even intelligent people can erect mental 'force fields' to prevent the photon torpedoes of rationality blowing up the warp core of belief...

871. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #79896 by steve99 on October 19, 2007 at 1:37 am

First you've got the cheering squad, the Hitchens groupies, and then you got the guys who comment on McGrath's style, his water, his grammar, but who did not hear a word he said.

May I refer you to Donald's superb post 237. We hear too well what McGrath says.

872. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #79830 by steve99 on October 18, 2007 at 4:39 pm

Regarding walk's question- I have 2 answers, but you guys deny either of them point to God.

#1 The Universe- All of Nature points to a Creator.
#2 The life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Now, of course, you've explained the universe by evolution and you deny that Jesus was even a real person, so there's not much more I can give you.

The thing is, we know with high confidence that 1) is simply not true. We know of two mechanisms that can produce what looks like design - non-equlibrium thermodynamics and Natural Selection. These aren't theoretical - we see them both in action all the time, including the evolution of new species. To insist that all the Universe points to design after knowing about these phenomena is like continuing to believe that a card trick is real magic after someone has shown you how it is done - simply deluded.

And the evidence that Christ rose from the dead simply is not there; at least no more there than other supposed messias around at that time of history. Someone had to be chosen by later writers to promote their views; the story of Jesus did the trick. There are all kinds of stories like that of Christ spread through history. Why should be pick one of them and call it 'genuine'? (And no, saying is written in a book does not help, as there are other books)

A good way to understand how some of us feel is to think how you might feel if you came to see all the evidence and explanations of how the Universe worked before you came across the bible. It is virtually never the case that someone who has been through this process considers the bible a better or more useful explanation - they usually consider the bible a collection of ancient stories. The other explanations are not only simpler, but we can actually use those explanations to make things better for us.

873. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #79814 by steve99 on October 18, 2007 at 3:42 pm

It must be the value it is, given the rules of maths. So, the question is, who has given us the rules of maths?

No one. We invent them. We define the axioms we want to use and the formal procedures we want to follow. If you pick other axioms and other formal procedures, you get other results. All I am saying is that given certain rules, you can find certain results.

874. God's honest truth?

Comment #79774 by steve99 on October 18, 2007 at 1:41 pm

I don't like it. Rather than legislating that religious dogma not be taught to the unsuspecting pupils...

Why should schools be teaching religious dogma? Schools should be about education, not indoctrination.

875. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #79754 by steve99 on October 18, 2007 at 12:44 pm

hang on. so what DG is saying is something like: my ethics come from within me, I then judge scriptural ethics and somehow the scripture matches?

But that is the way almost all religions work. It is truly bizarre. It is wonderfully circular. First you have a vague feeling what is right. Then you locate scripture that matches that feeling. Then you claim that the scripture justfies the feeling.

And, of course, this is the danger, as this re-inforcing circular process can allow just about anything to be justified.

876. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #79728 by steve99 on October 18, 2007 at 10:46 am

Agreed. So what's the solution to this particular problem? "New atheism's" idea to actually suppress religion, somehow prohibit parents to teach religion to their children (it's a kind of child abuse you see) and so on - is beyond harebrained. The only viable solution I can think of, and I really cannot see why any religious person or naturalist of good will would object to, is to actually teach ontology and the major ontological theories at high school. I wouldn't mind if different teachers would teach this using different books written by the respective specialists. Bring the best religious and naturalist ideas to the young people who will tomorrow be voting, and let them free to make up their own minds. I really think that's a good solution.

I can't believe it. We totally agree on something! (Apart from your usual misunderstanding of "New Atheist" views)

Your view about what children should be taught is pretty much the one put forward by Daniel Dennett. He expresses this view in this talk:

http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/94

877. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #79718 by steve99 on October 18, 2007 at 10:08 am

Donald: superb.

878. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #79717 by steve99 on October 18, 2007 at 10:07 am

If you all agree I propose to flag him as a troll.

Personally, I don't really approve of flagging anyone as a troll.

879. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #79714 by steve99 on October 18, 2007 at 9:53 am

Anyway I am sorry I passed judgment on you and called you a cry-baby; I don't know you at all and maybe you have had a really hard time.

It is good of you to apologise. Personally, I have had a very easy time indeed. But I know many who haven't. However, as this is not an issue we have discussed in detail before, and because you have apologised, I am prepared to respond just this once.

True, and frankly I have no idea what atheistic regimes said to justify their persecution of gay people, but what they said is surely something of comparable stupidity, but something that in turn was not said in religious societies. So what? Persecution is persecution, and the fact that it is here justified by some stupid phrase that includes the word "God" and there is justified by an equally stupid phrase that doesn't is quite irrelevant I think. In short, you don't need the concept of God to justify persecution, nor to justify the most abject crimes against humanity for that matter, as the history of the 20th century amply illustrates.

But that is the whole point. Justifying things with the word "God" changes the character of things. It stifles debate and allows persecution to be considered "holy". Religion has a powerful capacity for allowing people to hide nastiness behind dogma and scripture. It is not unique in this. Other irrational frameworks have power too - nationalism for example. The problem with religion is it claims the highest possible authority - the will of God.

But the fact remains that the rights of gay men living in the UK, one of the richest and most liberal countries in the world, and with one of the most advanced Churches in the world on top of that, does not make it to the top 100 problems that humanity faces today, and probably does not make it to the top 1000.

That is not the issue. It is a symptom of what is wrong with religion. And it is a symptom that can get easily out of control. The Anglican Church sets itself up in league with some nasty people in its battle for 'the right to express conscience (i.e. prejudice)'. This includes not only some African bishops, but also some muslim clerics. We start off thinking that yes, maybe gay rights are a matter of conscience, and religious views should be protected, and then we end up thinking that some muslim cultures should be allowed to teach creationism and oppress women because that is their 'religious tradition'. The excessive respect for religious belief has to be abandoned.

Dr Benway is one of the wisest posters I have read, and he is so right about this. personal uncorroborated attitudes should not expect to be given respect. Religions provide a powerful framework for doing precisely that. Not the only such framework, but one of the most powerful ones. We should not be arguing about which irrational subjective model (religion, nationalism etc.) is worse. We should be attempting to reduce the weight given to all such personal subjective unsubstantiated beliefs.

Thanks again for the apology. That is all.

880. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #79696 by steve99 on October 18, 2007 at 7:42 am

I think the flea seriously underestimates McGrath and equally seriously overrates himself. I've read what both McGrath and David Robertson have to say about religion and atheism and although I can't stand McGrath's mannerisms and think he's profoundly wrong and has successfully managed to delude himself, at least I can understand him and his arguments do progress with a strange kind of internal logic. I can't say the same for the flea who really doesn't have the intellectual wherewithal to debate on this site, let alone criticise a much more coherent fellow-Christian debater.

Indeed. Reading The Flea's Dawkins Letters was painful... not another argument of the existence of God from beauty, not another argument from half-understood physics. The Letters challenged no Atheist Myths (which was their intention), they only showed what happens when you try and debate without full knowledge. It was much like those 'green ink' letters that physicists get when yet another armchair scientist comes up with their 'original' idea about why Einstein was wrong...

881. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #79690 by steve99 on October 18, 2007 at 7:12 am

phasmagigas:

Beautifully put, but I am afraid the Dianeloses are immune to this kind of reasoning. You see, the world is supernatural and God creates all experience. You may see that insect dying horribly, but that does not mean it is real! After all, how could a perfect God allow it? No.... the insect is probably really having a nice relaxing holiday somewhere.

It is basically a carefully-crafted delusion that allows one to hide from the uncomfortable truth.

882. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #79680 by steve99 on October 18, 2007 at 6:29 am

It is you who are ADDING something that we dont accept is there so i think the onus is on you to do the first bit or proving.

Dianelos is also master of the false dichotomy. If there are flaws in our current understanding of naturalism (or, rather in Dianelos' straw-man version) this MUST mean the only alternative is theism. There is at least one other option: We don't know everything yet. However, for Dianelos, "I dunno" is not good enough.

883. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #79673 by steve99 on October 18, 2007 at 6:05 am

You have no clue and do not have the intellectual tools to make sense of the very solid and tangible points he made in his first 20 minutes statement.

Perhaps you could list some of them, and explain why they should need intellectual tools for their understanding. As Daniel Dennett describes so well in a recent talk, we have moved from the huge unquestioned mountain called Yahweh to the barely-detectable fog-covered hill of the modern God, who consists of little more than theological babble.

But finding a basis, a solid basis for your morals in some kind of philosophical sense, is a much harder question than you admit.

Personally, I think it is quite a hard question. I just don't see what the existence or otherwise of an invisible personality has to do with it. Theology makes for bad philosophy.

884. Dan Dennett award and speech at AAI 07

Comment #79663 by steve99 on October 18, 2007 at 5:21 am

Does anyone know what his Turkish phrase means? "Her insan dogar, yasar, ve olur"... I've been wondering for ages.

Well, machine translation gives:

"Every human being dogar, law, and all right"

Obvious really.

885. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #79661 by steve99 on October 18, 2007 at 5:18 am

If it is going to be Marcel Marceau, it will need to be a Postmortem Generator (as the beloved creator of Pip is now deceased).

Indeed. This would make things easier for McGrath, as such a debate would, by the mere fact of its existence, prove him correct.

886. Logical Path from Religious Beliefs to Evil Deeds

Comment #79659 by steve99 on October 18, 2007 at 5:15 am

Just noticed your comment. May I reply? Briefly?

Of course!

I think it should be obvious that this sort of religion is NOT GENUINE RELIGION. It's a travesty of religion. Just something used by politically, hate , ignorance motivated individuals. I only wish you could see that (and that Richard could.) But let that pass.

I think it is at the core of things. The problem is who defines genuine religion? You say one thing (and thank goodness for your interpretation) and the Taliban say something else. However there is nothing intrinsic within religion which allows us to discriminate. You discriminate using the same emotional and intellectual resources as a non-believer.

But we move on from this faith because He has said so.

Don't you see the contradiction in this? 'because He has said so' is faith, isn't it?

IN SUM. If you are a Christian, it is THE RATIONAL OUTCOME that you must use MIND to its full extent.

The problem is that your definition of Christianity does not match that of others (such as revcourt), and it seems to reduce to a conversation in which you simply each declare yourselves to be right.

I would suggest a way to consider how rationality should work in this area. First, imagine someone coming new to the subjects covered by science and religion. By 'new' I mean without any religious culture. Teach them how rationality works, and how to reason. Then, present them with the known facts about the world, and let them make up their mind about what the explanation is. There is little doubt that if this experiment was repeated over the past two millenia, the role religion would have in any explanation would fade, perhaps even to insignificance (perhaps not). The problem is we all start from our culture and history, and that gives us an initial foundation for our beliefs. This is why it can be so hard for people in some cultures to become atheists - it can take a real effort to see that what you considered absolute certainties are nothing of the kind. I am sure you are using reason; but I would suggest this is within a framework of religious certainties. True reason would involve questioning even those.

887. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #79647 by steve99 on October 18, 2007 at 4:11 am

Thirdchimpanzee, and others:

It is not wise to take what Dianelos says seriously. Just about everything he claims has been dealt with countless times on various threads on this site. However, he ignores this, and continues to post his own personal straw-man ideas of what science means, what it does, and what 'naturalists' think. As has been pointed out (but is worth repeating) what is really going on here is a desperate attempt to defend what are basically mundane Christian beliefs, little different from those of an average moderate churchgoer. You are dealing with nothing more than this, combined with a pseudo-scientific and pseudo-philosophical framework based on
personal standards of wishful thinking and incredulity. The danger is that it all looks very intellectual, but the constant ignoring of counter-arguments shows its fraudulent nature. When you come across arguments like 'Big Invisible Magic Man can do everything by Invisible Magic, therefore you can't argue by science', this illustrates the low-brow nature of discussion. (And this comes from someone who accuses Dawkins of poor standards of reasoning!). Don't let me stop you debating (as if I could) ... I just want to advise that you almost certainly won't get anywhere. Still, if you are enjoying it...

888. Logical Path from Religious Beliefs to Evil Deeds

Comment #79643 by steve99 on October 18, 2007 at 3:31 am

I think Richard is saying that:
1. Incorrect premises lead to bad conclusions, and
2. Many religious beliefs are bad premises.

I think it is more subtle than that. The problem is that religion can bypass rational analysis. Instead of thinking things through, a believer just takes thing on faith.

This in no way implies that religion inevitably leads to evil deeds. It is just that the kind of thinking that is required to be religions allows justification of such deeds.

889. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #79622 by steve99 on October 18, 2007 at 1:20 am

I don't really think he said all that much or made any real incisive in depth argument.

I thought he made some great points. One of the most interesting was 'why would a God good wait so long (98,000 years at least) before 'saving' humanity?'. I had never heard this point made before. Of course, it does not work for fundamentalist creationists, but that was his point - once you fudge religion with reality, you get inconsistencies like this.

890. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #79612 by steve99 on October 18, 2007 at 12:33 am

I left the Alistair McGrath thread because of the same thing, only to get drawn into this one. I too will respond no more.

I fell into the trap of believing there was honesty in his replies, especially considering the volume of text... However the recent 'complexity' debacle made me deeply suspicious that I was observing an attempt to deliberately confuse the issue.

Then, finally, the offensive rubbish that gay people should be grateful for the mild nastiness of the Anglican Church, because it could be so much worse did it for me. I guess when it came down to facts rather than word-play, the only way to defend religion was through insults.

Well I can be mean enough to fight back at that level, but I tend to find that boring these days.

891. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #79609 by steve99 on October 18, 2007 at 12:18 am

This would be easy to imagine. The law of contiguity (which doesn't hold in our universe) states that when two particles make contact with one another, a third particle comes into existence that binds the two together. Hence, if you add two particles together, you get three.

You are confusing physics with logic. Logic is not embedded in physics.

What you are saying is that, once you define 2 as 1+1, certain things follow necessarily.

Yes.

I am arguing that it is possible that the reason they follow necessarily is because the universe was made this way. It is hard for us to imagine a universe where they don't follow necessarily, but just because we can't imagine that, it doesn't make it impossible.

The thing is, if you are going to make an extraordinary claim like this, you have to provide some justification. Is logic mutable in the way you suggest?

I have a feeling that you are reasoning like this (correct me if I am wrong):

"I desperately want morality to be objective. I can't conceive of a way they can be. As God is supposed to be the ultimate everything, then I guess that in some way he could 'instantiate' the truth of such things."

I suggest this is false. There is more reason to require that logic has been, or could be, dependent or designed by a deity than to say that right and wrong is dependent on the existence of... say, penguins!

If you want to suggest that morality is objective, you need to do something more than bringing in God. You could attempt to use God to try and justify our feelings of morality. In other words, you could claim that God has designed our minds. However, that does not make our sense of morality objectively true any more than if they had been designed by evolution.

Surely words like 'objective' and 'subjective' mean something different when you are talking about the creator of a universe who designed its laws?

No, as you are confusing physical law with mathematical and logical 'law'. There is nothing to be designed, or even designable, about the last two. Well, that is my understanding.

If God really did make the laws of the universe hold according to God's will, would we still describe that will as subjective?

If this could be the case (and I argue it can't be), then yes, it would be subjective.

Let me repeat the question at the end of an earlier post:

Just consider the following: Given the rules of math, how could PI not be the value it is?

892. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #79562 by steve99 on October 17, 2007 at 5:51 pm

What theists "mean" seems to be be whatever a pro-theism conversation requires in the moment.

This is covered very well in Dennett's superb speech at AAI 07.

893. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #79538 by steve99 on October 17, 2007 at 3:41 pm

The question is all about whether there can be objective morality, which there cannot, without God.

What has God got to do with it? There is either objective morality or there isn't. God is irrelevant to the issue. If morality is objective, then it is objective to God too... and not vunerable to his subjective opinion.

894. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #79537 by steve99 on October 17, 2007 at 3:39 pm

Do you really, really think we create logic?

Yes. That is not to say that everything is flexible. Once you create the axioms and rules, things inevitably follow.

Clearly we express logic in our own terms, but if there were intelligent life elsewhere in the universe, do you really think they'd have different logic?

Probably not, but it is conceivable. I remember a fascinating article in Scientific American in the 80s which showed how a system of logic could be set up which would make Quantum Mechanics appear less paradoxical. In his novel 'Anvil of Stars', Greg Bear describes an intelligent alien species that has no concept of whole numbers.

I hate all types of apple. Granny Smiths are a type of apple. I don't hate Granny Smiths.

Surely, however you express them, these statements contradict.

Only because of our definition of terms such as 'type'.

This isn't just a language game - I'm not talking logic into existence and then arguing that it must have been created. I'm saying that this universe is such that the laws of logic apply.

That makes no sense at all. What could there possibly be in the nature of the universe that could make 1 + 1 = 3?

What if the universe was deliberately made that way? Is that possible?

No, it isn't. Logic exists in an abstract domain that is not subject to the whim of Gods. If you start of with the right axioms, you are always going to find the same logical statements. That is not something that needs a Universe to exist in, or a God to create. Just consider the following: Given the rules of math, how could PI not be the value it is?

You are making a common philosophical mistake - thinking that logic is somehow 'real', and that it needs a Universe to exist in. This is not the case.

895. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #79527 by steve99 on October 17, 2007 at 2:55 pm

Theists need an asshole like Hitchens to shake you guys out of your comfort zone.

Oh don't worry. There are plenty of theist assholes. Ted Haggard, Pat Robertson, Ian Paisley..

The main reason why McGrath gets mocked here is because just won't answer the damn questions.

896. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #79524 by steve99 on October 17, 2007 at 2:32 pm

The point is that reason cannot arrive at what I should do. Dr B agrees, and can probably explain it better than I can.

We use reason + feelings.

My assertion, which should be what we're discussing as it is the thing I believe we disagree about, is that IF there were a God who was responsible for the existence of reasoning beings and in logic itself, there might be a right answer to questions of morality.

Logic is based on axioms which we define. These don't come from God. Logic is not absolute. All we can say is that if thinking beings start off with the same axioms we do, then what we discover in math and logic is also there for anyone else to discover.

The existence of a God that creates reasoning beings has no connection to the existence or otherwise of objective morality. This is an explanation for why we have a sense of morality (although it is the wrong explanation, as evolution alone can do the job), but it does not lead to any justification of why any particular thing is 'right'.

897. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #79516 by steve99 on October 17, 2007 at 2:07 pm

But nobody ever thought that smelliness is an objective property; but most people including myself strongly believe that at least some ethical precepts are objective. So that's not a good analogy.

The strength of your belief is irrelevant. You seem to believe that if you believe with all your might, that somehow makes things true. That reality has to fit with a slightly more evolved ape's idea of that is 'reasonable', or what 'makes sense'. The arrogance of this position is astounding.

Also, I am just not going to engage with you on the other matters. I have dealt with all of them in discussions with you before. This is a waste of time. Any attempt to show that you are mistaken will lead to meaningless word-play, probably involving obscure falsehoods about what 'naturalists' believe, and lots of use of the word 'ontology'. I will feed the troll no more.

898. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #79498 by steve99 on October 17, 2007 at 12:56 pm

So our instincts are not very reliable there. We can use reason to work out how we should behave sexually, but usually people just use reason to rationalise their sexual behaviour, which is different.

I don't understand, as you have basically explained male vs female promiscuity rather well.

The bottom line is that I have to decide whether to follow my instincts or not. On what basis could I make that decision? Either I go with someone else's answer (again, how do I pick?) or I use my own rational capacities.

The answer is that we discuss things with others, and see what feels right. Normal people have bounds beyond which they will not go, but within those bounds, we explore what is moral through discussion.

899. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #79478 by steve99 on October 17, 2007 at 11:43 am

Hlfway through now, still no evidence from 'machine-gun' Hitch, plenty of ranting rhetoric though. Apart from AM dealing with his points so well, my favourite part thus far (apart from my mention) is AM's highlighting of the wishful thinking of athiesm.

I am puzzled - are you watching the same video? If so, how about giving us a reference to a single time when AM effectively deals with a single point of Hitchens'.

900. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #79405 by steve99 on October 17, 2007 at 7:28 am

holy moses, this was written by the king of ontological ontology???????

I guess when someone provides unquestionable evidence that even supposedly mainstream and moderate religion can get nasty, the true character appears.